Looking at RFC5102 (IPFIXinfo), it, like many RFC, has normative definitions in the body of the document and a non-normative appendix, which, since it brings the definitions together, is easier and so more likely to be used. Indeed, the IANA considerations, s.7, tell IANA to register the non-normative appendix which is fine as long as the two are in step but what happens when they are not? In fact, they do differ slightly. The IANA considerations register URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info-15 XML: See Appendix B for this document. whereas Appendix B says that the name is <schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info" which is what is in the IANA registry. IANA have used Appendix B and so have got the right answer by doing the 'wrong' thing. (Interestingly the last I-D of this document had, in Appendix B, <schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info-10" xmlns:ipfix="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:ipfix-info-10") What if an error is discovered in the body of the document (I have not looked at it in any detail) and an erratum is raised against it? Does this implicitly request IANA to update the registry? Does it matter whether the erratum is against the appendix or the body of the document? (I think this is called the distributed database problem:-) Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf